I usually also send my log soon after the contest (and also upload to
lotw) or the next day if I am tired.
However, given that many contest log software packages prefill
exchanges and give you warnings on the fly about bad/busted exchanges,
aren't you in essence doing "log massaging" on the fly? I won't lie,
sometimes a contest logging program HAS told me about an improper
exchange and I've corrected it on the fly. I see nothing wrong here.
Another thing to note is that sometimes the contest robot might warn
you about possible busted Q's and actually tell you to fix it if
necessary. It does seem as though the contest sponsor in that case
really has no problem with log massaging and even wants to help you do
it!
Point is, I don't see the big deal about log massaging. Its not
against the rules of any contest as far as I'm aware, and if you don't
have any outside help I don't consider it to be unethical either.
What IS unethical are people who email me after the contest with some
lame excuse (probably a lie too) like their hard drive crashed and
they want the QSO details from me. THAT is definitely against the
rules of most contests and can absolutely be considered cheating.
73
Ryan, N2RJ
On 7/13/10, Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc@citlink.net> wrote:
> Doug, KR2Q wrote:
>> I also fully support Ward's position: Send in the log now and "analyze" it
>> later. Finding errors is the > role of the adjudicators, not the
>> competitors
>> (at least not until they've submitted their original log).
>
> For the record, I agree with Doug and Ward regarding re-working your log
> after the contest is over. With the exception of making notes on-the-fly and
> applying these corrections later, I typically generate my Cabrillo file and
> send it off to the contest sponsor without grooming my log.
>
> But there is another scenario I would like to open up for discussion. And
> that is about "reasonable expectations."
>
> For instance, let's say you fly from New York to San Francisco on a regular
> basis. You reasonably expect to arrive at your destination within the normal
> timeframe based upon hundreds of previous trips. You wouldn't "reasonably
> expect" to land in Orlando or crash somewhere in a wheat field in Kansas.
>
> Now let's say you have been using a contest logging program for hundreds of
> contests. You would reasonably expect it would log the information you typed
> during the contest. You wouldn't "reasonably expect" it to change your
> logged contest exchanges, especially without any indication or knowledge on
> your part.
>
> But let's say this DID happen. The program went renegade and decided to log
> what it felt like, more or less at random. Let's further say this problem
> did not
> become apparent to hundreds of contesters until AFTER the contest was over.
> They all "reasonably expected" their Cabrillo file would contain what they
> typed.
>
> The first question: Does the operator have the "right to know" this happened
> to their log? Or should it be sent in first and reviewed later as suggested?
>
> The second question: What is a prudent course of action if this scenario
> happened to you?
>
> 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <kr2q@optimum.net>
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:03 PM
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Cheerleaders and the impact
>
>
>> Being spotted (whether by many others or by a few or even one cheerleader)
>> does indeed
>> have a sizable impact on rate based on my many decades as a log checker in
>> CQWW. It is
>> totally obvious that the RATE goes up when a spot is made IF the rate is
>> such that it can be
>> increased.
>>
>> With the current WRTC situation, simply because the station receiving the
>> lion's share of spots did not
>> "win, place, or show" in no way proves that those additional spots were
>> not a help. For all you
>> know, this station may have come been destined to come in dead last, but
>> instead placed
>> wherever they did. Those with scores greater than the "spot-ee" do not
>> care, but saying "no
>> impact" is completely (a) a total guess and (b) probably NOT what those
>> with a lesser score
>> are thinking.
>>
>> If anyone else out there has compared the rates of hundreds of logs
>> immediately before and
>> then subsequent to a "spot" on Cluster (as I have) and can refute the last
>> sentence in the first
>> paragraph above, I'm all ears.
>>
>> I also fully support Ward's position: Send in the log now and "analyze" it
>> later. Finding errors is the
>> role of the adjudicators, not the competitors (at least not until they've
>> submitted their original log).
>>
>> de Doug KR2Q
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
Ryan A. Jairam,
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest